Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 314 (MAD)

K. Gunasekaran v. District Collector, Salem

2022-02-03

K.KALYANASUNDARAM, V.SIVAGNANAM

body2022
JUDGMENT : K. Kalyanasundaram, J. (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner's property situated at 3/40, Veppilaipatty Main Road, Vellalagundam Post, Vazhapady Taluk, Salem District comprised in Gramanatham S.Nos.111 and 364 of Vallalagundam Village without due process of law.) 1. Mr.M.Alagu Gowtham, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 to 9. Mr.V.Jeeva Giridharan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the 12th respondent. 2. By consent of the parties, this writ petition has been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the property situated at 3/40, Veppilaipatty Main Road, Vellalagundam Post, Vazhapady Taluk, Salem District comprised in Gramanatham S.Nos.111 and 364 of Vallalagundam Village without due process of law. 4. Mr.D.Simon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's fore-fathers had constructed a house in question and it has been in their enjoyment for the past about 90 years. While so, without any notice and without conducting any enquiry, the respondents are attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. It is also stated that the proceedings were initiated pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.10205 of 2016 dated 06.10.2021. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 9 would state that the said land belongs to the State Highways Department and despite the notice issued under Section 26 of the Highways Act, no objection came from the petitioner as well as the other encroachers and hence a final order was passed for removal of encroachment. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would state that in response to the show cause notice issued by the 6th respondent, the petitioner had already submitted a reply, which is enclosed at page No.58 of the typed set filed before this Court, but no enquiry was conducted thereafter. 7. It appears that the petitioner has not submitted a detailed reply to the notice issued by the 6th respondent and the final order passed during the pendency of the writ petition would have serious impact on the rights of the petitioner in the subject property. 7. It appears that the petitioner has not submitted a detailed reply to the notice issued by the 6th respondent and the final order passed during the pendency of the writ petition would have serious impact on the rights of the petitioner in the subject property. Hence, we are granting two weeks time to the petitioner to give a fresh reply to the notice issued by the 6th respondent. It is open to the petitioner to raise objections before the 6th respondent, within the stipulated time. The 6th respondent shall pass orders under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, after providing personal hearing to the petitioner and all necessary parties, on merits and in accordance with law. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents. 8. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.